Mozilla to weigh in on EU's Microsoft case
Mozilla has been granted a seat at the table in the European Commission's antitrust case against Microsoft, an EC source said Tuesday.
Mozilla requested and was granted "third-party status," which entitles the organization behind the popular Firefox browser to receive access to confidential documents in the case and the ability to voice objections, the source said.
The Commission, which is the European Union's executive arm, in mid-January formally put Microsoft on notice, objecting to the bundling of the Internet Explorer browser with the Windows operating system.
Mozilla Chair Mitchell Baker
(Credit: Seth Rosenblatt/CNET Networks)The Commission's decision, which initially stemmed from a complaint filed by rival browser maker Opera, gives Microsoft two months to respond to the allegations, as well as opening the case up to third-party involvement.
Mozilla was not immediately available to comment, but its chair commented on the case in her blog on Friday.
Mitchell Baker, Mozilla's chair, wrote that she agrees with the Commission's allegations that tying IE to the Windows OS harms competition for Web browsers and reduces consumer choice. She also noted:
There are separate questions of whether there is a good remedy, and what that remedy might be. But questions regarding an appropriate remedy do not change the essential fact. Microsoft's business practices have fundamentally diminished (in fact, came very close to eliminating) competition, choice and innovation in how people access the Internet.
One potential remedy that the European Commission is considering: a requirement that Microsoft include rival browsers with its operating system.
Baker further notes in her blog:
I'll be paying close attention to the EC's activities, both personally and on behalf of Mozilla. Mozilla has enormous expertise in this area. It's an extremely complex area, involving browsers, user experience, the OEM and other distribution channels, and the foundations for ongoing innovation. An effective remedy would be a watershed event; a poorly constructed remedy could cause unfortunate damage.
I'd like to offer Mozilla's expertise as a resource to the EC as it considers what an effective remedy would entail. I'll be reaching out to people I know with particular history, expertise and ideas regarding these topics. If you've got specific ideas or concerns please feel free to contact me. I'll post more as the discussion develops.
Baker's blog didn't specify her views on bundling Firefox with IE. However, Firefox architect Mike Connor told PCPro that he would consider bundling a mistake. "My personal view is that it's not the right outcome," he told PC Pro. "The choice (when installing Windows) would be weird. There's no good (user interface) for that."
Connor noted that this is his personal opinion and that Mozilla is still determining its position on the issue, according to PCPro.
Dawn Kawamoto covers enterprise security and financial news relating to technology for CNET News. E-mail Dawn. 
So They are out of reaches of the EU and others
Amen brother!
"but who here has ever tried to explain the difference, to an older friend, between IE and any other browser."
(other browser name) is generally regarded as more secure since it does not have ActiveX.
Next question?
"And, just where does a browser end and the operating system begin?"
HTML rendering. Everything else was artificially implanted by Microsoft back in the 1990's in an attempt to justify IE's existence as a pre-load.
The rest is just a bunch of whining. If Microsoft doesn't like the EU's ruling (however it may turn out), then Microsoft can stop selling its wares in Europe. Same goes for Apple, Novell, RedHat, or any other non-EU company. Their sandbox, their rules.
When pointing out a flaw in others, do so without proving to have that flaw. Penguinistos comment in this thread was well thought out and well implemented. Yours however was simply an attack and was poorly implemented at that.
Also, you didn't even come close to spelling either his name or the shortened form of his name properly.
I don't always agree with Penguinisto, but at least he thinks through his comments before posting. Try to do the same.
If the Browser stops at HTML rendering, then "everything else" can be considered part of the operating system, can't it? Since microsoft writes the operating system, they have the right to include "everything else" since it is part of the operating system, and not part of the browser. Now if microsoft writes a browser that uses "everything else" and mozilla doesn't, then that's mozilla's problem.
Firefox comes with unbuntu and they should be in the case too.
But now see firefox pointin fingers on microsoft when they are into thesame practice. I hate the european union. people cant just wak up one morning and bully M$. Apple should be involved even unbuntu.
Would you prefer Ubuntu create its own browser, try and say everyone should standardize around it, tie it in so tightly to the OS that removing it is impossible without causing system damage and then say you're free to use whatever you want as long as you don't remove anything we provided?
Oh wait, MS probably has a patent on that.
By the way, learn how to spell the distro before trying to knock it, it's Ubuntu, not unbuntu.
Internet explorer is in Windows, TRUE. Firefox or other browsers can as well be downloaded from the internet (since the INTERNET is accessible to everyone and is STINKINGLY cheap!) So no need of hanging around with some set of installation CDs containing rpms/debian packages/... for a new web browser, as you have everything on the internet (even with up-to-date version of "whatever" browser).
+ It would be insane for Canonical<Ubuntu> (a profess Open Source Company) to venture into building another web browser, when there's already a Stream of such to choose from. Microsoft has the developer strength to do this, and they never procrastinate on doing that. Any fault with that? They now go ahead to make that available without stopping users from MAKING THE CHOICE OF DOWNLOADING THEIR PREFERRED INTERNET "SURFER" (BROWSER? anyone) from the internet!
Don't think there's an offence in that.
Apple controls 100% of the content on the itunes service which accounts for the significant majority of music sales. Apple sets the terms on which individuals have access by encoding the content with DRM that only plays on ipods (where they also have the significant majority).
Apple controls 100% of the sale of OSX and sets the terms on which individuals have access by requiring that you can only run it legally on hardware also controlled by apple (see pystar lawsuit for details).
Are you blind?
Here's another trick: OEMs can, if this thing goes through, choose what browser they want to install, or better yet give you a choice when you order the computer.
@ Seaspray: Nobody is forcing you to install iTunes, and you can remove it entirely without breaking the computer. Same with Safari. Now try to do that with Internet Explorer.... oh, that's right, you can't. There's also the niggling fact that OSX' very kernel, Darwin, is open source and runs perfectly fine on any x86 or PPC machine - free for the taking at any time. Have yet to see published source code for XP or Vista... go figure.
But then, even Microsoft isn't stupid enough to go to the EU and whine about Apple like it were some sort of example of why it should get off the hook, ne?
Read the entire thread before posting. My comment was in response to the OP. The fact that MS has IE was never at question. If it weren't so heavily tied in to Windows there would still be an issue here. Setting up a repository with several other quality choices and including that repository into every Windows installation would at least make a step in the right direction.
By the way, have you even tried Ubuntu? I have one install CD, that's for the OS. Once it's installed I could break the CD if I felt like it, there's no reason to keep it around except for my friends who want to try Ubuntu on their own machines.
I don't have to search through the CD to find alternate browsers. I don't have to bring up Firefox to be connected to the internet any more than you have to bring up IE, the repositories just make it easier to find the programs you need without having to resort to FTP. That was my point.
Next time, please try to respond to my post and know a little something about what I'm talking about.
Microsofts shameless attempt to try and own the web has done nothing but cast a huge storm cloud over the internet for the past decade +. You dont see sites that "only work with firefox" or "only work with safari". But you can still find sites that "only work with IE".
No website should only work on one browser.. and in microsofts case that would mean only work on one platform...windows. The web is an open ecosystem and anyone on any platform or browser should be able to take advantage of it.
This is the problem with IE.. its basically DRM's websites to one platform.
So I don?t agree with this monopoly argument. I would rather have one good Dictator than dumb democracy like what we have for the last 8 years.
What type of crack are you smoking? Since when have Apple played fair with iPOD or iTunes. Their updates have specifically closed holes that allow third-parties to interact with their libraries or devices.
Just look at the rules for iPhone apps that prevent developers publishing apps that replicate existing or future functionality...or whatever rule they decide to make up.
MS isn't perfect but this is money grab in troubled times. Having Mozilla on the table means the outcome will always rule in favour of the EU....guess who gets the money. They do.
...and yet we see no evidence of this. Maybe you can cough some up?
"It's a pain to make sure all browsers worked."
It's a pain to adhere to basic W3C standards? Damn... are you sure you're an actual developer, or just someone who scrapes by on one set of parameters and hopes to found a whole career on it? Hope IE doesn't lose any more marketshare, else you're liable to be unemployed, and in this economy, that ain't good...
"Since when have Apple played fair with iPOD or iTunes."
Err, I can play mp3's on an iPod all day long, the AAC files from iTMS can be ripped very easily with just the iTunes app, and gtkpod lets me access the thing very easily from within Linux (meanwhile iTunes is available for Windows and OSX... shall we compare all of this to the Zune, perhaps?).
/P
I lol'ed
I too am (sort of) a developer and honest to god as much as I would to make things work on all browsers I keep getting one that will break it, one version of opera even fakes itself as ie =.=
btw i use opera lol
competition is good, but there r somethings that I wish the competition would just agree on one standard, just like how wireless has standards set out instead of having every one developing their own crap
Wireless standards?? Are you kidding me? Don't you remember all of the 'Pre-N' routers out there? Or all the routers that have their own special proprietary 'enhancements' that only work if you use the same equipment? Its not that here aren't standards but everyone seems to add their own very special twist on top of them.
yes I know that, what I mean is the most basic compilation of the the standard code exluding those extras ie. activex
I had a instance where my code compiled differently on firefox and opera, then another instance between opera and safari, ie plenty ill give u that. and I'm not using anything special yet
the wireless thing, honestly most of the stuff I've worked with up till now I only had issues with D-link once or twice nothing else most people don't use special equipment at least I haven't gotten into a situation like that. and as for wireles-N draft, dude, it took too long for wireless-n to get finished and companies jumped on it, can't complain at least most of them worked, "sort-of"
With MS, you have a partner that will work with you. With Apple, you have someone begging you to write software for their platform right up until Apple decides they don't need you and cuts your throat. Like they did Konfabulator.
MS has standardized computing, bringing the price of owning one down to a level where we can all afford it. That never would have happened with Apple and their closed walls
Try removing IE. Go on, try it.
The EU is right in this. MS needs to allow its code to stand up to scrutiny on its own. If a person doesn't want IE, then he shouldn't be forced to have it.
We'll take it to the car analogy again. Imagine walking into a dealership and telling them you'd like to buy a specific car. In order to buy that specific car you wanted, they're telling you that you have to buy this other one that isn't as good, needs roads to be made specific for it to run which the other car won't run on properly, that it is easier to break into and that you can never get rid of. Moreover, so many other people have chosen to buy that car that more and more roads get built for it and it only, meaning the one you really want won't work on those other roads.
Will you buy the car or will you go somewhere else? Oh wait, the non-standards complient car is being forced on you in 90% of the dealerships around and so obviously it must be good (sc).
The EU realizes just how much MS has stifled not only competition, but also the growth of the internet.
MS always claimed that IE was part of windows. So your statement "Try removing IE. Go on, try it." is supporting MS's claim.
Also the car analogy is also supporting that IE is part of the "car". You can't get a Ford engine running your BMW transmission, can't you? You buy the car and whatever comes with it.
funny, but Xtools isn't crippled, and it costs $0.00 How much is an uncrippled copy of Visual Studio costing these days?
"With MS, you have a partner that will work with you."
...if you pay a hefty fee for the privilege, that is...
" With Apple, you have someone begging you to write software for their platform right up until Apple decides they don't need you and cuts your throat. Like they did Konfabulator."
Too bad you skipped some parts (like, oh, Konfabulator being bought by Yahoo, and a complete dearth of any credible documentation about Konfabulator's "throat" being "cut". )
"MS has standardized computing, bringing the price of owning one down to a level where we can all afford it."
You misspelled IBM up there. Without IBM's standardization of the IBM-PC architecture, there would be no clones, no price pressure, and Microsoft would have remained an Apple applications vendor.
/P
there is visual studio express =.= besides u don't have to use it make software on windows there is a bunch of other ones, only those that choose to will buy visual studio
and honestly with
"With MS, you have a partner that will work with you."
i believe he didnt mean literally talking to u over the phone so ur fee claim would also be false like u falsifying everyone elses opinion that has even the slightest idea of say MS not really that evil
and as i recall ibm and microsoft worked together back then, so saying that microsoft was part of standardization of pc(i think he just forgot the word part of) would be too far off. At least if it weren't for MS promoting USB as much as it had back in 98(i think thats when it started) the so beloved usb interface might never have been as embraced. at least I love usb lol
o and god, why is it everytime i see an irrational hateful comment against MS have either u(penguinisto) or Apple096(or how his name is spelled) name on it =.= it gets annoying after awhile and felt like u ppl aren't even trying to think things through before pulling the trigger
You may want to read my car analogy again and this time, take it in its original context. The cars represent browsers. In order to get the browser you want, you have to take IE and you can never be rid of it. The roads were a fairly clever analogy for webpages (see, information superhighway).
Now, I realize from your comment that you were taking the analogy to mean something completely different, thinking that I meant the car was the OS, but seriously, when's the last time you were forced to buy a second OS just to get the one you wanted?
I never stated that IE is not currently part of Windows. However, before stating that MS has always said that IE is part of the Windows operating system, try out Windows 3.1. I've even read stories of being able to completely remove IE from Windows 95, but as I don't have a copy of Win95 lying around to install and test this, I can't know for certain.
Try taking my quotes in context and if you don't understand an analogy, it's ok to ask.
Id mentioned "uncrippled". Otherwise it's like saying that (Windows example) Outlook Express == Outlook, which is also not true.
"i believe he didnt mean literally talking to u over the phone"
He didn't say, at all. He merely threw out a general statement. Any other aspect barely keeps up with the competition.
I wrote what I did not about any sort of telephone support, but because the competition gives one huge advantage that will cost you (sometimes literally) millions to get from MSFT: Access to the source code. In OSX and Linux, I can see the exact source code for the kernel(s) and write my apps to work with it, all without guesswork and incomplete API docs (which is MSFT's big problem, so they try to give you .NET as a substitute). In OSX, a good share of the libraries have the source code right there - in Linux, all of the libs have the source code right there. In Windows? Again, it'll cost you for the privilege of seeing them.
HTH.
"and as i recall ibm and microsoft worked together back then"
Doesn't matter. If IBM kept their standard proprietary, and with IBM's pricing for PCs (often very close to what Apple charged), you would have had a much, much smaller market than today's, and Microsoft would have been forced to concentrate well over half its efforts on writing Apple software just to stay alive.
/P
When was the last time you wrote an app in assembler code? I haven't written in assembler since the early 90's and it was for a motorola 68000 microprocessor. Yea, like you're actually going to go through all that source code to see how it works? Nobody does that anymore. Not only do API's make life easy, the also provides other functions... making sure your app doesn't mess up someone else's app and making sure your app works with updates to the OS. Those are two things linux programers often ignore.
What browser can you not put on Windows? What hardware can you not use with Windows? What App can you not use on Windows?
the majority of the standards that they support r closed
and they use this leverage their position
look at directX look at ActiveX etc etc.
I'm not saying it's bad thing
But M.S is just as closed as Apple
the only open platform is linux !
Please, tell me exactly what hardware you tried to install for Apple that didn't work. I'm not saying it's not possible there is some, but I'm saying that I doubt you even tried. Also, try and install older hardware on a Vista machine and see where you get, there's a reason people talk about having to "upgrade" their hardware just to run Vista.
I switched to Linux with my old hardware. It's running as well as my neighbors fairly new laptop and just as well as her also fairly new desktop PC with roughly 4 times the RAM which just happens to be running XP.
Before trying to compare the two, take a look at what Open Source really means. I'd rather be denied the feast by Apple than to become the feast for MS.
Where did you get the idea that folks couldn't do that?
Everyone can: http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/
Want some steak sauce to help with the taste of that shoe leather, Crash?
Not open and interoperable? I think you really should look futher into this.
Sure it is a rematch but this time no remorse is given. Microsoft is in deep debt on the interoperability front. They need to pay back and start to obey the laws as any other company.
Didnt think so. By the way when it comes to interoperability, MS was the one initiating alot of the movement for this.
If Linux is so interoperable, why cannot I not play All of my PC games on it? Why cannot I not use all of my Apps and hardware? Think about it before you respond. Youre starting to get dangerously close to being just another shill for Linus.
Your PC games won't play on any other platform but Windows because they have been coded for Windows only. However, there are programs for Linux which let us play many games coded for PC only. Look up WINE and Cedega, but of course, that might actually prove you wrong so I'm betting you won't.
By the way, when Bill left MS did he take all logic with him along with the business sense needed to keep a company running?
When upgrading from XP to Vista, how many customers were left with nonfunctioning hardware? I switched to Ubuntu from XP and all hardware worked right out of the box. The number of drivers not available for Vista at the moment exceed the number of drivers not available for Linux (any distro).
As for your apps, go look for a .deb file and install it on Windows. Can't? What about a .rpm file? No go? Can you install the app from source code? No? I can. I can also install many .exe files (windows apps) through WINE without an emulator.
I'm guessing you'll respond with yet another poorly thought out response full of FUD. It's ok, at least you're good at something.
They have no choice anymore. Too many Linux servers and too many OSX clients for them to not have to.
"Office works with Open Office"
Bullsh!t. Even MSFT's developers have admitted that they cannot possibly fully document the file standards for most Office file formats. And OOo got as far as it did in spite of MSFT, not becuase of it.
"Oh did you know that the MS office is the #1 purchased software for Mac? "
...and is usually kept a version behind the Windows version of Office.
Yes apple ties their hardware and software together... which is why it works so well. But maybe the MS model should be applied to say umm the car industry. How about if Kia makes the engines everyone puts in their cars... lets go get a BMW with the Kia powerplant.. or a ferrari... or chevy or whatever...it'll be awesome. Right? Oh and I have never installed OS X on a machine I built although its easy to do. I dont build my computers for the same reason I dont build my own car. Yes its true anyone who can follow directions that come with any lego set can slap the components together to build a computer... but I dont see how that makes a computer user any better than the next guy.
dream_fly is right when he/she says ONE standard makes it easier on developers and that is at the heart of the matter. You choose IE because its easiest for you to develop for...and its to hard to make it all work with other browsers... I feel your pain. But I would rather develop to open standards that are controlled by the people rather than the standards MS allows. You develop a site for IE and you know it wont work as planned in Firefox or safari or opera and so on. But the reverse is also true. You develop sites that work in Firefox and you know that they will work with safari, opera , ect.. but most likely wont work in IE.... and thats an engineered outcome by MS.
Apple is proprietary built on top of open. The underlying BSD code is open however Aqua and many of the application etc are closed. AAC is an open standard but they wrapped it in proprietary DRM (thankfully that at least is fading away).
"Its not the closed proprietary windows system that only a few large customers get access to. wanna develop your own broswer.. go grab the open source for webkit and code away.. cant do that with IE's rendering engine. Get the point?"
The Windows API is not closed off to developers and IE's rendering engine can be dropped into an application through use of a control. Developers have been able to do it since the days of Visual Basic 5 (maybe earlier) and can continue to do so. If you use a non-Microsoft development tool the process is a bit more involved but do able. It may not be open source but it's entirely possible to write a custom UI and custom functionality around the IE rendering engine. Just look the Maxthon or Avant browsers, they have IE at their core.
"I dont build my computers for the same reason I dont build my own car. Yes its true anyone who can follow directions that come with any lego set can slap the components together to build a computer... but I dont see how that makes a computer user any better than the next guy."
It's control, when you build a PC it up to you what goes in it. It's a lot more customizable than anything you get from Dell or Apple etc. Plus you don't get the shovel ware.
"Wanna know why you cant get your games to play on a linux box? its because of the proprietary MS technology called DirectX that MS wont license out to other platforms"
Developers could use OpenGL, even on Windows, but they choose not to. The shenanigans of the group managing OpenGL has lead to a bit of all fall out with developers. They took several years to produce the 1.3 specification, while DirectX advanced considerably, and at the last minute watered it down to the disappointment of many. OpenGL developers had to rely on third party extensions to keep up with what was being built into DirectX. DirectX got programmable pixel and vertex shaders, OpenGL need another extension. While Microsoft won't license their code to third parties, there are effort to create a compatibility layer called Wine.
Every company has proprietary technology they refuse to license, including Apple.
good someone got the things straight, at least in my mind apple and MS are doing exactly the same thing, only difference is apple has better PR
I was able to use and crash pretty much all the OS some of my friends claim "indestructable", may be I'm filled with static electricity or really ****** luck =.= at least I believe all OSs can crash in the hand of beginner user, which is the majority of the pop.
...so where can I download the source code to Vista then?
(*cue crickets chirping*)
"not for the good of the web though" This however can be said of many of Apple products. Battery replacement on Iphone and Ipod come to mind. Or how about choice of hardware to install in a Mac. Where is copy and paste on Iphone? Where is flash on Iphone? Multitasking non existence in Iphone. do we really need to continue?
When is Opera going to file the same complaint against Apple, last time I checked Safari was bundled with OS X as well.
No, it means bundling every browser with Windows, and probably another complaint to the EU when some unheard of rarely used browser doesn't get included.
It's exactly the same situation. Somehow I doubt that would ever happen though. The EU is about making money for itself, not their member countries.
I for one only want to code for the market leader, regardless how they got there. Blu-ray won the war (not fairly I would say) but the world is a better place to have ONE winner. The same is true on IE. Last I checked I didn't see much programmatic help(like ease of debugging javascript, ease of using the webbrowser control, etc) from all other browsers so I will still develop apps for IE only. If IE is moving toward the so call "standard", I will move along. To me IE is the standard.
P.S. I love FF, and hate IE and Opera, but this is ridiculous.
There are a couple of points here. The most important point is that as Microsoft have a monopoly in desktop operating systems, they are subject to certain constraints on their behavior. These laws are there to protect consumers. As a monopoly holder, this is just a price you have to pay. Most people would think that its a smal price to pay for the benefits of having the monopoly.
The second point is that the EU have **never** told Microsoft what they can and cant put in their O/S. In the case of the Media Player, the EU recognised the pro-competitive aspects of Microsoft providing a free media player bundled with the OS, but what the objected to was the **compulsory** bundling. Hence the N editions.
Microsoft would not be in this position now if they had unbundled IE 3 or 4 years ago. No one wants the N editions, but by providing it without IE, they would not be accused of compulsory bundling. Somehow, I think the EU will be asking for more than just a N editions this time around.
/P
The EU is just late to the party with this one. Not to mention they had the chance to address bundling during their first anti-trust hearings with Microsoft, but failed to do so.
Internet explorer is in Windows, TRUE. Firefox or other browsers can as well be downloaded from the internet (since the INTERNET is accessible to everyone and is STINKINGLY cheap!) So no need of hanging around with some set of installation CDs containing rpms/debian packages/... for a new web browser, as you have everything on the internet (even with up-to-date version of "whatever" browser).
+ It would be insane for Canonical<Ubuntu> (a profess Open Source Company) to venture into building another web browser, when there's already a Stream of such to choose from. Microsoft has the developer strength to do this, and they never procrastinate on doing that. Any fault with that? They now go ahead to make that available without stopping users from MAKING THE CHOICE OF DOWNLOADING THEIR PREFERRED INTERNET "SURFER" (BROWSER? anyone) from the internet!
Don't think there's an offence in that.
You do not have to buy Windows. Microsoft is not a monopoly. Nowhere is it required to use Windows OS unless you (or your boss) make the choice.
This communist BS of a regulation of a business is driving me nuts. You don't like the product you're offered, go somewhere else. Its not that difficult to understand. You don't like Ford, buy a Chevy...
Requiring extra downloads and steps for average user just to placate some other software manufacturers is quite frankly stupid (and most novice users would realistically choose MS anyway) - and having the EU trying to carry out the dirty work of these manufacturers is a waste of tax payers money - yes all those EU taxpayers are paying for this with very little if any benefit at the end . Irrespective of outcome.
Why dont the EU focus on things which are to the benefit of citizens and taxpayers and stop wasting time and energy on things like this.
- by t8 February 10, 2009 7:41 PM PST
- I would also like to see OEMs not bundle Windows by default. Consumers should also be allowed to choose the OS, Ubuntu, Android, Windows, or another. Imagine how many great OS's there could be now if Microsoft didn't force OEMs to use their one. And think about how limiting viruses would be if people were using different code bases.
- Reply to this comment
-
-
- by Rawnchie14 February 25, 2009 8:32 AM PST
- No one forces you to use OEMs, you're as blind as the EU is.
-
-
- by t8 April 5, 2009 1:31 AM PDT
- You are actually wrong. Microsoft was convicted of forcing OEMs to bundle Windows. This is partly why they won the OS war. Now the are running on momentum, but they got that momentum illegally.
-
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (94 Comments)If all humans had the same DNA, then humanity would be at risk. Viruses can put at risk nearly 90% of computers at any one time because they are all running Windows.
Please help stop this madness EU. Thanks.
Just because companies choose not to use other operating systems, is not MS's fault, despite all of your conspiracy theories. I know where to get alternative systems on my computer, so they're available and Windows can be removed from any PC. If you have a problem with Windows, take it up with computer manufacturers that buy the OEMs, not MS.
This is a waste of time, witch hunt.